Municipal Authority Cannot Ignore Subsisting Civil Court Decree Merely Because Appeal Is Pending: Bombay High Court
Saksham Vaishya
12 March 2026 3:50 PM IST
The Bombay High Court has held that a municipal authority cannot refuse to grant a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by disregarding a subsisting civil court decree merely on the ground that an appeal against the decree is pending. The Court observed that under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filing of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decree, and unless the decree is stayed by the appellate court, it continues to remain operative and binding on the parties.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the refusal of Nagar Parishad to issue an NOC required for the appointment of veterinary doctors and for regulatory approvals necessary to operate a municipal slaughterhouse. A dispute had arisen between the petitioner and the municipal council, and the petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking protection of the slaughterhouse's possession. The civil suit was decreed in January 2022, granting the petitioner a perpetual injunction protecting its peaceful possession of the property. The municipal council filed a civil appeal against the decree, which remained pending without any stay. Despite the decree, the municipal council refused to grant an NOC required for the appointment of veterinary doctors. The petitioner contended that the refusal was arbitrary and contrary to law since the decree in its favour had not been stayed.
The Court noted that the refusal of NOC is not an adjudication of private contractual rights alone; it is an administrative obstruction that directly impacts statutory and regulatory compliance and is asserted to be contrary to binding court orders and a subsisting decree.
On the issue of maintainability, the Court emphasised that the availability of an alternate statutory route does not by itself bar a writ when the impugned action is alleged to be arbitrary, in disregard of binding judicial orders, and where the relief sought is essentially to compel performance of a statutory/public duty and to quash an administrative refusal founded on irrelevant considerations.
The Court held that the pendency of an appeal does not render a decree inoperative unless the appellate court grants a stay. Therefore, the municipal council could not ignore the decree while exercising administrative powers.
“… an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate court may order… Respondent nos. 1 to 3 cannot, in administrative exercise, treat the decree as non-existent or inoperative merely because they have filed an appeal.”
The Court also held that public authorities must justify their administrative decisions on legally relevant grounds and cannot rely on vague considerations such as public opposition or pending litigation when a binding judicial order exists.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the refusal of the municipal council to issue the NOC was unsustainable. The Court directed the municipal council to issue the required NOC within two weeks to enable the appointment of veterinary doctors.
Case Title: Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company v. Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 11247 of 2025]